Classybird
Entrou em abr. de 2000
Bem-vindo(a) ao novo perfil
Nossas atualizações ainda estão em desenvolvimento. Embora a versão anterior do perfil não esteja mais acessível, estamos trabalhando ativamente em melhorias, e alguns dos recursos ausentes retornarão em breve! Fique atento ao retorno deles. Enquanto isso, Análise de Classificação ainda está disponível em nossos aplicativos iOS e Android, encontrados na página de perfil. Para visualizar suas Distribuições de Classificação por ano e gênero, consulte nossa nova Guia de ajuda.
Selos2
Para saber como ganhar selos, acesse página de ajuda de selos.
Avaliações9
Classificação de Classybird
I am pretty familiar with Plath's story, and am also a keen fan of her work, which i think contributed to my hesitancy in seeing the film. I did not have high hopes for this film at all, and honestly, I have to say that I was pleasantly surprised.
My main criticisms:
I found it hard to get past the whole 'Oooh look it's Gwyneth Paltrow as Sylvia Plath'. Someone who isn't famous on a global scale would have been more credible.
The whole premise of the film hinges on the deep passionate relationship of Plath and Hughes, yet I never really felt convinced by it. The relationship came across as quite two dimensional, and even pretty one sided on the part of Paltrow/Plath. Instead of being portrayed as an emotionally fragile woman driven to the edge by Hughes' constant philandering and ultimate betrayal, Plath actually seemed to come across as being deeply insecure and neurotic, constantly suffering from extreme PMT, and overreacting every time she saw Hughes even talking to another woman, rather than having genuine reason to suspect his infidelity.
There were a couple of key dramatic moments (such as after they have made love for the first time, and when they are out in the boat together) that felt very hammy, so disrupted the momentum of the piece.
The score is just awful. Totally totally overwrought, over the top, too loud and too much of it. Plus, as Paltrow/Plath really starts to lose her mind there is an almost constant sound of howling wind in the backgroud. Again, OTT. Less definitely would have been more.
HOWEVER
Ok, I complained about Paltrow above, but she really did a great job. She really is a very talented actress, and it is a shame the whole celebrity thing gets in the way. She was particularly fine in the latter stages of the film, and the sad descent into loneliness and irreversible depression was very well judged.
Likewise, Daniel Craig was very enigmatic, although I wonder whether the one sidedness of the relationship as mentioned above may have come from him.
As a whole the film was very sympathetic, and showed how hard it must have been for Hughes to live with Plath. It doesn't justify his behaviour but rather tries to show an understanding. It also evokes a sense of a time when poets were considered important.
This film stayed with me for some days after watching it, and I would recommend it. It is somewhat uneven in pace and direction, but I think Christine Jeffs is a director with talent, although her inexperience showed. But above all, it renewed my interest in both Plath and Hughes.
7/10
My main criticisms:
I found it hard to get past the whole 'Oooh look it's Gwyneth Paltrow as Sylvia Plath'. Someone who isn't famous on a global scale would have been more credible.
The whole premise of the film hinges on the deep passionate relationship of Plath and Hughes, yet I never really felt convinced by it. The relationship came across as quite two dimensional, and even pretty one sided on the part of Paltrow/Plath. Instead of being portrayed as an emotionally fragile woman driven to the edge by Hughes' constant philandering and ultimate betrayal, Plath actually seemed to come across as being deeply insecure and neurotic, constantly suffering from extreme PMT, and overreacting every time she saw Hughes even talking to another woman, rather than having genuine reason to suspect his infidelity.
There were a couple of key dramatic moments (such as after they have made love for the first time, and when they are out in the boat together) that felt very hammy, so disrupted the momentum of the piece.
The score is just awful. Totally totally overwrought, over the top, too loud and too much of it. Plus, as Paltrow/Plath really starts to lose her mind there is an almost constant sound of howling wind in the backgroud. Again, OTT. Less definitely would have been more.
HOWEVER
Ok, I complained about Paltrow above, but she really did a great job. She really is a very talented actress, and it is a shame the whole celebrity thing gets in the way. She was particularly fine in the latter stages of the film, and the sad descent into loneliness and irreversible depression was very well judged.
Likewise, Daniel Craig was very enigmatic, although I wonder whether the one sidedness of the relationship as mentioned above may have come from him.
As a whole the film was very sympathetic, and showed how hard it must have been for Hughes to live with Plath. It doesn't justify his behaviour but rather tries to show an understanding. It also evokes a sense of a time when poets were considered important.
This film stayed with me for some days after watching it, and I would recommend it. It is somewhat uneven in pace and direction, but I think Christine Jeffs is a director with talent, although her inexperience showed. But above all, it renewed my interest in both Plath and Hughes.
7/10
Ok, they spent so much time worrying about the special effects they forgot about the script!
The first Matrix film was truly astonishing. Enigmatic, new, exciting, original and refreshing, it came like a bolt out of the blue and made us feel excited about 'movies' again......but then came the utter bollocks that was 'Reloaded', and now, even worse, the total tripe that is 'Revolutions'.
The script of 'Revolutions' is totally, totally awful, with some of the cheesiest dialogue I have ever heard in a cinema. As a whole the film is absolutely and utterly predictable. The acting was patchy, with only Carrie Ann Moss and Hugo Weaving really standing out. Of course we had the usual couple of unintentionally hilarious Keanu moments.
In praise, a couple of set pieces worked very well, and were exhilarating visual treats. It's a pity that the rest of the film hung around it was so sub standard in comparison. The trilogy now comes across like any other blockbusting action film - a few great sequences with impressive special effects, but with not much else to offer in the way of storyline, dialogue and performance.
It just feels like they should have left 'The Matrix' as it was, and not bothered with the remaining two installments. The Wachowski Brothers seemed to be totally out of their depth in terms of the ridiculous storyline with 'Reloaded' and then got in even deeper trying to dig their way out in the final installment. But is it really the final installment? Seemed to me like the ending was an ending that was not completely final, and a way has been left open for even more sequels in this franchise. Another reviewer here has said that Hollywood now no longer produces films, but franchises. That, my friends, is it in a nutshell.
The first Matrix film was truly astonishing. Enigmatic, new, exciting, original and refreshing, it came like a bolt out of the blue and made us feel excited about 'movies' again......but then came the utter bollocks that was 'Reloaded', and now, even worse, the total tripe that is 'Revolutions'.
The script of 'Revolutions' is totally, totally awful, with some of the cheesiest dialogue I have ever heard in a cinema. As a whole the film is absolutely and utterly predictable. The acting was patchy, with only Carrie Ann Moss and Hugo Weaving really standing out. Of course we had the usual couple of unintentionally hilarious Keanu moments.
In praise, a couple of set pieces worked very well, and were exhilarating visual treats. It's a pity that the rest of the film hung around it was so sub standard in comparison. The trilogy now comes across like any other blockbusting action film - a few great sequences with impressive special effects, but with not much else to offer in the way of storyline, dialogue and performance.
It just feels like they should have left 'The Matrix' as it was, and not bothered with the remaining two installments. The Wachowski Brothers seemed to be totally out of their depth in terms of the ridiculous storyline with 'Reloaded' and then got in even deeper trying to dig their way out in the final installment. But is it really the final installment? Seemed to me like the ending was an ending that was not completely final, and a way has been left open for even more sequels in this franchise. Another reviewer here has said that Hollywood now no longer produces films, but franchises. That, my friends, is it in a nutshell.
I never got to see this film while it was in the theatres. I was always so busy and anyway, the talk of dog fighting put me off. But after hearing so many glowing recommendations, I finally got around to renting it on DVD.
Set in Mexico and focusing on three separate yet interwoven stories, the film uses a terrible car crash as a jumping off point.
In the first segment a young man, Octavio, (played by the superb Gael Garcia) is in love with his abusive brother's wife. He wants to raise enough money for them to run away together so he uses his beloved dog 'Cofi' and gets involved in the violent world of dog fighting. The second act tells the tale of a supermodel whose lover leaves his wife and daughters to set up home with her. She is devoted to her terrior 'Richie' and is devastated when he disappears through a hole in the floor and doesn't return. Throughout both of these segments we catch glimpses of a transient, scruffy character who is perpetually surrounded by a pack of adoring dogs, and we finally learn his story in the third and final act.
At three hours, the structure of the film is impressive, especially as it begins at a frenetic pace and then slows down somewhat - but it leads us to a satisfying conclusion. The soundtrack in particular is brilliant, as is the acting, writing, photography and design.
'Amores Perros' is as the title states, a film about love, and all types of love. Blind love, foolish love, familial love, co-dependant love, unrequited love, parental love, thwarted love, sexual love - it's all there and played out through the love the principal characters have for their pet dogs. In one way the film examines the human 'animal instinct', the human capacity for violence and our deep seated need for survival. It is a huge, sprawling piece which is exhilarating, visceral, violent, heartbreaking, funny, passionate, vibrant and urgent.
Films like this don't come along very often. You really should see it.
Set in Mexico and focusing on three separate yet interwoven stories, the film uses a terrible car crash as a jumping off point.
In the first segment a young man, Octavio, (played by the superb Gael Garcia) is in love with his abusive brother's wife. He wants to raise enough money for them to run away together so he uses his beloved dog 'Cofi' and gets involved in the violent world of dog fighting. The second act tells the tale of a supermodel whose lover leaves his wife and daughters to set up home with her. She is devoted to her terrior 'Richie' and is devastated when he disappears through a hole in the floor and doesn't return. Throughout both of these segments we catch glimpses of a transient, scruffy character who is perpetually surrounded by a pack of adoring dogs, and we finally learn his story in the third and final act.
At three hours, the structure of the film is impressive, especially as it begins at a frenetic pace and then slows down somewhat - but it leads us to a satisfying conclusion. The soundtrack in particular is brilliant, as is the acting, writing, photography and design.
'Amores Perros' is as the title states, a film about love, and all types of love. Blind love, foolish love, familial love, co-dependant love, unrequited love, parental love, thwarted love, sexual love - it's all there and played out through the love the principal characters have for their pet dogs. In one way the film examines the human 'animal instinct', the human capacity for violence and our deep seated need for survival. It is a huge, sprawling piece which is exhilarating, visceral, violent, heartbreaking, funny, passionate, vibrant and urgent.
Films like this don't come along very often. You really should see it.